See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362570328

The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours

Chapter · June 2022

DOI: 10.4135/9781529782509.n9

CITATIONS READS

4 4,166

3 authors:

Hongfei Liu Ahmed Shaalan

University of Southampton Cranfield University
26 PUBLICATIONS 925 CITATIONS 24 PUBLICATIONS 459 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chanaka Jayawardhena
University of Surrey
87 PUBLICATIONS 4,559 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hongfei Liu on 17 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


The Impact of Electronic
Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on
Consumer Behaviours
Hongfei Liu, Ahmed Shaalan and
Chanaka Jayawardhena
INTRODUCTION
Consumers have always had a propensity to
share their personal experiences of products/
services/brands with others. Marketers have
long appreciated the importance of such user-
generated content and Ernest Dichter coined
the term ‘word of mouth’ (WOM) advertising
in 1966. In online environments, electronic
word of mouth (eWOM) has become important
to consumers, marketing academics and mar-
keting practitioners. In an era where technology
is ever-developing, the Internet is increasingly
playing a vital role in our lives. In 2021, the
number of Internet users had reached 4.54 bil-
lion, accounting for 59% of the world’s popula-
tion (wearesocial, 2021). It is undeniable that
the Internet has had a very significant influence
on people’s lives, thereby also leading to an
evolution in customers’ consumption habits
(Liu et al., 2020; Yoo et al., 2013). Customers
are now able to shop, communicate, acquire
information and share thoughts without leaving
their home, simply by moving their fingers
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 136
9
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004; Jacobsen &
Munar, 2012; Zhang et al., 2011).
Formally put, eWOM refers to any positive or
negative statement made by potential, actual, or
former customers about a product or company
via the Internet (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004;
Ryan & Jones, 2009). According to a definition
by Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004), any product/
service/brand-related user generated content
(UGC) can be seen as eWOM information.
Meanwhile, eWOM also exists in most online
media that support users in generating their
own content. Therefore, eWOM is a very broad
concept that exists in consumers’ generation of
product/service/brand-related content in multi-
ple online media. It is apparent that eWOM is a
near-universal trend that has profoundly influ-
enced the customer decision-making cycle and
business performance. This chapter concep-
tualises and defines eWOM, highlighting the
theoretical foci. Subsequently, the motivations
of consumers’ eWOM engagement are exam-
ined, followed by categories of eWOM-related
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
theories. The chapter concludes by presenting a
contemporary view of the concept.
WORD OF MOUTH VS. ELECTRONIC
WORD OF MOUTH: SAME, SAME BUT
DIFFERENT
Conceptualising Word of Mouth
(WOM): An Evolutionary View of
WOM
The term ‘word of mouth’ (WOM) was ini-
tially used in marketing for over half a century
and has received close attention from market-
ing professionals and industrial practitioners in
the intervening decades (Chevalier & Mayzlin,
2006; Engel et al., 1969; Liu, 2006; Richins,
1983). WOM emphasises the interactive nature
of the communication (i.e., two-way communi-
cation), while such communication often hap-
pens in an informal setting between two or
more non-commercial parties. Early WOM
research in 1950s and 1960s identifies WOM
as informal advertising and a promotional
tactic, and highlights its effects on new product
diffusion (see Brooks, 1957; Engel et al., 1969;
Katz,1957). As the influence of WOM gradu-
ally began to be recognised by consumers and
brands, the emphasis of WOM research in
1970s shifted to exploring how WOM influ-
ences the entire consumers’ decision-making
process and shapes consumer behaviour, from
needs recognition (see Bettman, 1970; Johnson &
Russo, 1978), information search (see Corey,
1971; King & Summers, 1970), evaluation of
alternatives (see Schiffman & Gaccione, 1974;
Webster, 1970), purchase (see Midgley &
Dowling, 1978) and post-purchase behaviour
(see Mahajan & Muller, 1979; Martilla, 1971).
By the 1980s, WOM research was established
and scholars placed more emphasis on evaluat-
ing the effectiveness of WOM (see Monahan,
1984; Tapiero, 1983; Traylor & Mathias, 1983)
and highlighting the dark side of WOM (i.e.,
detrimental effects of negative WOM; see
Richins, 1983, 1984, 1987). In the 1990s,
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 137
137
WOM research demonstrates its context-
specific nature (e.g., retail sector vs. service
sector; see Blodgett et al., 1993; Hartline &
Jones, 1996).
Additionally, and more importantly, as
the development and popularity of Internet
technology moved apace, WOM research
started to look at the online transition of
WOM activities. More precisely, the launch
of the World Wide Web (www) in 1999 and
the rapid growth of the Internet in the market-
place accelerated the transformation of mar-
keting research, particularly WOM research,
from the offline to the online domain and
formed the basis of electronic word of mouth
(eWOM) (Bell & Tang, 1998; Zakon, 1997).
Although a large number of scholars had real-
ised the significance of the Internet in con-
sumer behaviours and marketing research,
studies focusing on WOM in the online
domain were still rare in the 1990s due to the
immaturity of the commercial Internet and
the low level of interactivity of Web 1.0 (the
first stage of the World Wide Web).
One of the earliest pieces of research
on WOM in the computer-mediated con-
text is attributed to a study at the SIGCHI
(Special Interest Group on Computer–Human
Interaction) Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems by Shardanand and
Maes (1995) entitled ‘Social Information
Filtering: Algorithms for Automating “Word
of Mouth”’. This study advanced the notion
that social information filtering methods could
be employed to make personalised recommen-
dations in online systems in which users had
common interests. The authors demonstrated
this through a test on Ringo – a networked sys-
tem that makes personalised recommendations
for music albums and artists. Shardanand and
Maes (1995) also suggested that similar stud-
ies were needed across different product cat-
egories. This pioneering study was a milestone
in WOM research history, as it revealed that
the involvement of the Internet and comput-
ers enabled consumers to obtain information
from people with whom they had no personal
contact, thus revolutionising the stereotype of
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 138 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
WOM as the output of interpersonal commu-
nication with acquaintances.
Scholars initially classifications of con-
sumers into different types of Internet users:
directed information-seekers (e.g., task-
oriented, information-seeking), undirected
information-seekers (e.g., interest-oriented,
information-seeking), bargain hunters, enter-
tainment-seekers and directed buyers (e.g.,
online shopping behaviour) (Breitenbach &
Van Doren, 1998; Lewis & Lewis, 1997). This
categorisation might no longer apply to the
modern world, since the Internet use in that
generation (Web 1.0) emphasised interaction
between users and websites. However, the
birth of Web 2.0 in 1999 completely changed
Internet users’ communicative patterns, from
user–computer interaction to the age of user
generation and interaction. Since then, WOM
has become digital in a real sense.
These pioneering WOM studies in the
late 1990s laid a solid foundation for study-
ing electronic word of mouth in the digital
age. eWOM originated from WOM and was
built on similar theoretical foundations to a
large extent. More importantly, although the
amount, richness and immediacy offered
by eWOM is much more competitive than
WOM in face-to-face situations for con-
sumers, there is no denying that both WOM
and eWOM exist and matter in this modern
age. eWOM is not a replacement for WOM
but a sub-category of it that is conducted
through digital media and the online domain.
Therefore, it is important to adopt an evolu-
tionary view to look at WOM and eWOM.
Electronic Word of Mouth
(eWOM) Definitions
The Internet, in tandem with social technolo-
gies (e.g., Web 2.0), has provided new plat-
forms for consumers to conduct word-of-mouth
communication in an online environment,
namely, electronic word of mouth (eWOM).
A number authors have defined eWOM. and
Table 9.1 summarises these.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 138
As a derivative of WOM, eWOM continues
the features of WOM and most studies adopt
the definition given by Henning-Thurau et al.
(2004) in their debate. Henning-Thurau et al.
(2004) was the first study to use the term
‘electronic word of mouth’ to interpret WOM
communication in an online environment. The
features of eWOM include: (1) information
valence; (2) being informal/non-commercial;
(3) being technology mediated; (4) enabling
the exchange of information/communication/
conversation; and (5) involving participators.
Considering these features, a vital aspect
that distinguishes eWOM from WOM is that
eWOM is technology-mediated communica-
tion. Henning-Thurau et al. (2004) emphasise
that eWOM is valence-free and informational
statement-giving in the online environment.
Henning-Thurau et al. (2004) also promulgate
a key issue in eWOM in that its participants
do not have to be active customers, but can be
former or potential customers. In other words,
all consumers who are actively or passively
interested in a given product/service/brand can
become eWOM participators. It is also worth
noting that eWOM does not replace WOM,
even in the digital age. As a sub-category of
WOM, eWOM and offline WOM are sup-
plementary rather than alternative. Therefore,
there may be differences in the form of com-
munication (e.g., virtual vs. face-to-face), the
audience (e.g., people from the consumers’
social cycles vs. online strangers) and the
interactivity (e.g., synchronised and asynchro-
nised). Such differences result in changes in
consumer behaviours during the digital transi-
tion of WOM communication. To better under-
stand eWOM from the consumers’ perspective,
the next section deciphers the consumers’
engagement in eWOM communication.
CONSUMER ENGAGEMENT IN eWOM:
A G-S-T VIEW
It is useful to view consumer engagement in
eWOM through the lens of marketing
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 Table 9.1 Definitions of eWOM

Theoretical focus

Authors Definitions Research Notes Information Informal / non- Technology Exchange of infor- Participators
platforms valence commercial mediated mation / communi-
cation /conversation

Henning-Thurau “any positive or negative statement Web-based First use of the term X X X X
et al. (2004, p. 39) made by potential, actual, or former opinion platform ‘electronic word

BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 139
customers about a product or of mouth’.
company, which is made available Widely
to a multitude of people and acknowledged
institutions via the Internet.” definition.

Thorson and “positive or negative statements Blog Established based X X

Rodgers made about a product, company, on the definition
(2006, p. 35) or media personality that are of Henning-
made widely available via the Thurau et al.
Internet.” (2004).
Media personality is
paid attention.

Litvin et al. “all informal communications N/A Established X X X X

(2008, p. 9) directed at consumers through based on the
Internet-based technology related definition of
to the usage or characteristics of word of mouth
particular goods and services, or (Westbrook,
their sellers.” 1987).

Lee et al., “eWOM is a WOM system that Interviews with Ignorance of X X

(2013, p. 688) exists in virtual space in which experienced information
messages are sent or received eWOM passed along.
related to products or services, and consumers Online chatting is
which users experience through included.
chatting or online boards.”
The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
139

07/04/22 3:35 PM
 140 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
communication, specifically what we refer to
as a GST view. A G-S-T view categorises con-
sumers’ eWOM engagement into three types of
behaviours: eWOM-giving, eWOM-seeking
and eWOM-transmitting. More precisely,
eWOM-giving refers to consumers’ online
sharing activities about a product/service/brand
(Yen & Tang, 2015). eWOM-giving acts as the
original point of eWOM communication and
generates information that continues the cycle.
eWOM-seeking refers to consumers’ active
engagement in searching for product/service/
brand-related online information that is shared
by other consumers to support their decision-
making. Finally, eWOM-transmitting refers to
consumers passing along others’ opinions
about a product/service/brand to facilitate the
dissemination of eWOM information. In the
process of forwarding, consumers may make
their own effort in supporting or criticising the
original eWOM information. eWOM-giving,
-seeking and -transmitting form consumers’
eWOM engagement.
Motivations of Consumers’ eWOM
Engagement
Antecedents of consumers’
information-giving behaviour
eWOM-givers create the source of eWOM
information and elicit the entire eWOM cycle.
In general, consumers’ eWOM-giving behav-
iour is motivated by (1) social capital resources,
(2) opinion leadership/expertise/knowledge,
(3) concern for others/altruism, and (4) self-
enhancement. More precisely, in terms of social
capital resources, consumers are motivated to
share eWOM due to the interpersonal relation-
ships they have with other individuals or social
units in the online environment. In this case,
most studies focus on social networking sites
(SNSs) due to the richness of social capital
resources embodied by SNSs. Chu and Kim
(2011) argue that SNSs can be seen as a minia-
ture of an individual’s social network in real
life, and trust and normative influences among
SNS members are positively associated with
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 140
consumers’ eWOM-giving on SNSs. Choi and
Scott (2013) also assert that the trust among
SNS members and the identification of seeing
each other as a group positively influence
eWOM-givers’ behaviour and the quality of the
shared information.
A further motivation for eWOM-giving
behaviour is that expertise, knowledge and
recognised opinion leadership is more likely
to encourage consumers to give eWOM. In a
study by Okazaki (2009), opinion leadership
was seen as an outcome of inherent novelty-
seeking and knowledge-gaining, which in
turn motivate consumers’ eWOM-giving.
Khammash and Griffiths (2011) hold similar
opinions, maintaining that opinion leadership
and expertise are not only the key anteced-
ents for consumers’ eWOM-giving, but also
for eWOM-seeking, due to the continuous
need for knowledge-gaining.
Consumers’ concern for others can also
facilitate their eWOM-sharing behaviour. In
this type of situation, concern can be divided
into two types: concern for other consumers
and concern for the company. Consumers
might share either positive or negative eWOM
based on their concerns for other consumers
in order to provide information that can help
other consumers’ decision-making, whereas
consumers usually share positive eWOM or
give constructive suggestions to companies
to express their concern for the business
(Jeong & Jang, 2011; Yang, 2017).
Self-enhancement is another key moti-
vator for eWOM-giving, as it reflects the
desire to be recognised by others in the
online environment (Chu et al., 2019). Taylor
et al. (2012) opine that the reason consum-
ers share online advertising is to achieve
positive self-enhancement through positive
self-expression. In terms of writing online
reviews, Gretzel and Yoo (2008) also claim
that the desire for self-enhancement is also a
key driver for consumers. Overall, consum-
ers’ antecedents for sharing eWOM are based
on either personal or social motives.
Different motives lead a consumer to share
eWOM on different media. For example,
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
social capital resources motivate consumers’
eWOM-giving on SNSs as there are limited
social capital resources on other eWOM media
(Gvili & Levy, 2018). On the other hand, if
consumers want to express their concern for
a business, they might choose an eWOM
platform that businesses can access and use
to respond (Liu et al., 2019). Furthermore,
most research on the inputs of eWOM-giving
focus on the demonstration of consumers’
long-term behavioural patterns. However,
consumers undertake a large number of con-
sumption transactions daily. Although con-
sumers choose to share eWOM based on
certain consumption experiences more than
others, extant literature does not illustrate why
this might be. Thus, it is essential to explore
both the impact of eWOM media and the par-
ties involved in the dynamics of eWOM com-
munication, and key drivers of consumers’
eWOM-sharing on a quotidian basis.
Antecedents of information-
seeking behaviours
Similar to eWOM-givers’ motives, informa-
tion-seekers’ motivations are reflected in dif-
ferent aspects: (1) social capital resources;
(2) opinion-seeking/expertise and knowl-
edge-hunting; and (3) risk management.
Social capital resources are important for
consumers’ eWOM-seeking behaviours.
Hung and Li (2007) suggest that, as with
WOM, social capital sources in eWOM can
contribute to consumer learning and result in
eWOM-seeking behaviour. Later, Chu and
Kim (2011) asserted that, under the umbrella
of social capital, tie strength, homophily,
trust, normative influence and informative
influence jointly influence consumers’
eWOM-seeking on SNSs. Therefore, when
consumers are seeking eWOM information
on SNSs, they pay attention to the social
attributes of the eWOM-givers and need to be
comfortable and confident in consuming
information in such a way (Gvili & Levy, 2018).
The next key antecedent that drives con-
sumers’ engagement in eWOM-seeking is
the need for expertise and knowledge (Zhou
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 141
141
et al., 2020). When consumers have limited
knowledge, but face decision-making and
the evaluation of alternatives, they are more
likely to seek opinions and advice through
eWOM. By doing so, eWOM-seekers might
reduce the number of alternatives or increase
the number of options based on their eWOM
information (Fodness & Murray, 1999).
Notably, the negative association between
knowledge and eWOM is not invariable, as
some scholars also assert that eWOM-givers
(particularly opinion leaders) also continu-
ously seek eWOM information to enrich
other knowledge about a particular product/
brand. In a study by Kim et al. (2011), the
level of consumers’ expertise was found
to influence their engagement in eWOM-
seeking behaviour.
Lastly, most commonly and importantly,
consumers seek eWOM information to
reduce the uncertainty of a purchase and
minimise possible losses (Goldsmith &
Horowitz, 2006; Ismagilova et al., 2020; Park &
Lee, 2009a). Hennig-Thurau et al. (2003)
assert that the initial concern of eWOM-seek-
ing is to obtain buying-related information to
reduce the risks of the purchase. Goldsmith
and Horowitz (2006) further clarify that, in
a planned situation (compared with seeing
information by accident), consumers seek
opinions and advice from others in the online
environment to reduce risk and secure a lower
price. This is important, because eWOM-
seeking is not always a planned behaviour.
Consumers might passively receive eWOM
information at any stage of the purchase, and
the impact of eWOM information received
in a passive way on consumers’ purchase
or consumption evaluation remains an open
question.
Antecedents of Information-
Transmitting Behaviours
Unlike information-giving and -seeking
behaviours, consumers who pass information
in the eWOM context play the role of
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 142 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing

transmitters (Kanje et al., 2020; Litvin et al.,
2008). In this case, consumers can easily
pass information instantaneously and spread
it to a wide range of audiences based on their
own interests or knowing others (Norman &
Russell, 2006; Sun et al., 2006). Therefore,
information-seekers and -givers can also
become information-transmitters, whereas
information-transmitters do not necessarily
have to be information-seekers or -givers
since they can access information by acci-
dent (Yeh & Choi, 2011).
Most studies claim that the motivation
behind information-passing behaviour is
the desire for excitement and the pursuit of
personal interests, and such behaviour suf-
fers from high situational uncertainty, such
as the degree of tie strength between for-
warders and receivers (Abedi et al., 2019;
Norman & Russell, 2006; Yeh & Choi, 2011).
Huang et al. (2008) assert that in the case of
eWOM, the relational commitment between
eWOM-transmitters and -receivers influ-
ences the social interaction tie and, in turn,
affects the transmitters’ pass-along behav-
iour. Importantly, the usefulness of eWOM
information to the final information consum-
ers (the information receivers) is unknown. In
other words, the outcome of such forwarding
behaviour is hardly ever observed and meas-
ured. Therefore, most eWOM studies to date
have focused on either the giving or receiving
perspective.
THEORISING eWOM: A HYBRID OF
TECHNOLOGY INFORMATION AND
MARKETING RESEARCH
This section reviews theories common in
eWOM research. Table 9.2 divides these into
four main categories, while the following
paragraphs discuss these further.
Category 1: Integrated
Behavioural Theories
Integrated behavioural theories are most
commonly used in explaining eWOM behav-
iours, particularly the antecedents of eWOM.
These theories have some similarities,
although they tend to divide the antecedents
of eWOM behaviours into different catego-
ries. Therefore, a useful way to understand

Table 9.2 Categories of eWOM-related theories

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Integrated behavioural Information Technology and Social relationship-related
theories processing-related theories media-related theories theories

Theory of reasoned action Elaboration likelihood model Technology acceptance Social network theory (SNT)
(TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, model (TAM) (Davis, (Scott, 2011; Wasserman,
1975) 1986) 1985) 1994)
Theory of planned behaviour Social exchange theory (SET) Uses and gratifications Social capital theory
(TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) (Emerson, 1976) theory (UGT) (Katz & (Nahapiet & Ghoshal,
Lazarsfeld, 1970) 1998)
Social cognitive theory (SCT) Information processing Diffusion of innovation Social identity theory
(Bandura, 1986) theory (Bettman, 1970) theory (DIT) (Rogers & (Ashforth & Mael, 1989)
Shoemaker, 1971)
Attribution theory (Kelley,
1967; Weiner, 1974)
Motivation, opportunity
and ability theory (MOA)
(Ölander & Thøgersen,
1995)

BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 142 07/04/22 3:35 PM

 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
these theories is to explore key assertions
held by all integrated behavioural theories
and their proponents. Integrated behavioural
theories generally maintain that eWOM
behaviours, as a kind of social behaviour, are
influenced by three key aspects (Bigné et al.,
2010; Huang et al., 2008; José-Cabezudo &
Camarero-Izquierdo, 2012; Kim & Park,
2013; Liang et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2014;
Soliman, 2019; Wang et al., 2013). These
factors are: (1) social/environmental (social
norms in TRA and TPB, environmental fac-
tors in SCT, external attributions in attribu-
tion theory, and opportunities in MOA);
(2) personal (attitude in TRA and TPB, per-
sonal expectation in SCT, internal attribu-
tions in attribution theories, and motivations
in MOA); and (3) behavioural (self-efficacy
in TRA, TPB and SCT, interaction of internal
and external attributions in attribution theory,
and ability in MOA). Taking the theory of
planned behaviour (TPB) as an example, it is
possible to observe that eWOM behaviour is
motivated by three elements. First, when
eWOM becomes a social trend and a well-
recognised behaviour in society (i.e., social
norms), consumers tend to become involved
in eWOM communication. Second, attitude
captures the individual’s perception towards
eWOM and directly influences consumers’
participation of eWOM. Third, since eWOM
is technology-mediated online communica-
tion, the engagement requires consumers to
master a certain level of technical require-
ments (i.e., self-efficacy). Therefore, social
environment, personal attitude and self-
efficacy jointly support the production of
eWOM behaviour. The common employ-
ment of these integrated behavioural theories
in eWOM studies further corroborates that
eWOM, as the outcome of a type of informa-
tion-oriented human-technology interaction,
has manifold antecedents.
The foregoing also discloses a problem-
atic issue, in that integrated behavioural
theories are more likely to be large theoreti-
cal systems, whereas most eWOM research-
ers have applied simplified models drawn
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 143
143
from these theories in exploring eWOM
behaviours in different contexts. As long as
these theories have been demonstrated to be
valid for eWOM behaviours, some scholars
have advised that their application should
be more situation-specific, alongside a par-
ticular focus on concrete eWOM behav-
iours (e.g., eWOM-seeking/eWOM-giving)
because these theories were not originally
developed for interpreting eWOM behav-
iours and it would be an overgeneralisation
to view eWOM as a whole (José-Cabezudo
& Camarero-Izquierdo, 2012; Meuter et al.,
2013; Soliman, 2019; Verhagen et al., 2013).
Category 2: Information
Processing-related Theories
It is indisputable that information plays an
essential part in eWOM behaviours.
Therefore, information processing-related
theories have become one of the main
research agendas in eWOM studies. Unlike
integrated behavioural theories, which answer
the question of what contributes to the forma-
tion of eWOM behaviours and have some
common central ideas, information-related
theories hold different assertions about how
information is processed by individuals and
how information works in order to change
individuals’ behaviour. More precisely, the
elaboration likelihood model generally
focuses on how likely an individual is to think
hard (central route processing) or be influ-
enced by others (peripheral route processing)
(Leong et al., 2019). Prior research suggests
that, from the eWOM-receivers’ perspective,
eWOM information has an impact on both
the central and peripheral routes, with an
emphasis on information credibility and the
perceived usefulness of that information
(Cheung et al., 2009; Fang, 2014).
In electing either a central or periph-
eral route to process information, consum-
ers’ judgements of the persuasiveness of
information are subject to the consumers’
involvement, expertise and prior experience
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 144 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
(Jalilvand et al., 2011; Lee, 2010; Leong
et al., 2019). Thus, these factors enable
consumers to process information through
the central route by generating their own
thoughts in order to respond to information,
rather than relying on others. Additionally, in
the context of eWOM, social exchange theory
(SET) views eWOM as a trade-off, in which
people spend time and energy on participat-
ing in eWOM to be rewarded with what they
want from participation, such as reducing the
risk of purchase, showing social presence in
a community, and the hedonic experience
of helping others (Abedi et al., 2019). SET
asserts that people will only participate in
eWOM by giving, searching for, and passing
on information if their rewards are worth the
costs (Buultjens et al., 2013; Duarte Alonso
et al., 2013; Wu & Tsang, 2008). In addition,
information processing theory in the context
of eWOM studies is used to decipher how
memories are formed by consumers’ previ-
ous experiences when confronted with infor-
mation and decision-making (Martin & Lueg,
2013; Wei & Lu, 2013; Zhang et al., 2013).
Therefore, some studies have used informa-
tion processing theory as their foundation but
utilised customer experience as an impact
factor rather than memories. After all, memo-
ries are harder to measure compared with
experiences, particularly when conducting
quantitative research. Experience works in
the same way as attitude in integrated behav-
ioural theories to embody individuals’ prefer-
ence and tendency to participate in eWOM.
Category 3: Technology and
Media-related Theories
The most remarkable difference between
WOM and eWOM is the role of technology
and media. The rationale of building on tech-
nology and media-related theories is to illus-
trate how technology and media influence,
shape and change individuals’ behaviour in a
social environment. In this regard, the tech-
nology acceptance model (TAM), as an
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 144
extension of the theory of reasoned action
(TRA) (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1977), has domi-
nated research themes in eWOM studies
(Molina-Castillo et al., 2012; Yang et al.,
2012). In particular, perceived usefulness and
ease of use are core elements that have been
fully or partially applied in a number of stud-
ies, as human–technology interaction sets a
bar for people’s capacity to use technology
and enables them to have expectations of the
benefits brought by using it.
Uses and gratifications theory (UGT) pri-
marily deals with the question of what indi-
viduals do with these types of media, and it
is different from TAM in that it emphasises
the significance of media in eWOM studies.
Customers are seen to gain different types
of experiences from using eWOM media,
including cognitive, affective and social
needs that might also motivate customers to
engage further with such media (Hicks et al.,
2012; Men & Tsai, 2013; Plume & Slade,
2018; Smith et al., 2012; Tsai & Men, 2013).
Similarly, diffusion of innovation theory
(DIT) clarifies how a new technology or idea
spreads in a social environment. Unlike TAM
and UGT, which have constructs underlying
the theory, DIT describes the process of the
spread of any new idea or technology (Wu &
Lin, 2017). In this context, the popularisa-
tion of eWOM can be seen as a new idea,
while eWOM platforms can be seen as a
new technology. Therefore, eWOM studies
have applied DIT as their theoretical founda-
tion, with an emphasis on exploring possible
impact factors during the course of the spread
of eWOM and eWOM technology, rather
than evaluating the suitability of the theory in
terms of explaining eWOM behaviours (Han
et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2013).
Research that applies technology and
media-related theories seems to focus on
the functioning of eWOM platforms and the
outcomes of these platforms. Such theories
highlight the digital nature of eWOM and
echo the significance of consumers’ digital
literacy and external facilitating conditions in
consumers’ eWOM engagement.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
Category 4: Social Relationship-
related Theories
Social relationship-related theories are
slightly different as they have strong rela-
tions with eWOM behaviour. Before the
advent of eWOM, WOM communication
relied on social relationships to a large
extent. In the context of eWOM, social rela-
tionships also play irreplaceable roles, par-
ticularly in platforms with high interactivity,
such as social networking sites, forums and
brand/product communities. Social network
theory (SNT) views individuals as nodes and
the relationships between them as ties that
generate a so-called network (Camarero &
San José, 2011; Cheong & Marrison, 2008;
Goldsmith & Horowitz, 2006; Kim,
Kandampully et al., 2018; Swanepoel et al.,
2009). Meanwhile, social capital theory
(SCT) refers to the ‘resources embedded
within, available through, and derived from
the network of relationships possessed by an
individual or social unit’ (Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998, p. 243) that lay the founda-
tion for trust, collaboration, and collectivist
activities within social aggregates, such as a
group or organisation (Canhoto & Clark,
2013; José-Cabezudo & Camarero-lzquierdo,
2012; Lobschat et al., 2013). While SNT is a
concept, SCT can be the foundation of a con-
ceptual model. Nevertheless, the essence of
these two theories is similar, which in turn
explains the incidence of extant research that
integrate them.
Social identity theory (SIT) is another the-
ory related to social relationships in eWOM
studies. This theory emphasises individuals’
self-image drawn from perceived member-
ship of a relevant social group, and primarily
explains individuals’ intergroup behaviours
through a process that moves from self-
categorisation to self-identification and then
to self-comparison (Chu et al., 2019; Kim,
Park et al., 2018). In the context of eWOM
studies, prior research has investigated con-
sumers’ eWOM behaviours, particularly
in brand/product communities and forums,
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 145
145
where it is believed that eWOM participants
have a stronger social identity as a key motiva-
tion (Eisenbeiss et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2013;
Yeh & Choi, 2011). Although the ‘self’ is
crucial in SIT, it is a relative concept in the
context of intergroup behaviour. In other
words, an individual’s social identity depends
on the social group to which he or she belongs
and the relationships with other members
within the group.
Social relationship-related theories empha-
sise the social side of eWOM and the impact
of self, others and self–others relationships
in the dynamics of eWOM communication.
In line with the research gap highlighted in
technology and media-related theories (cat-
egory 3), different eWOM media suggest
distinct social relationships that consumers
can possibly have with other members. For
example, consumers usually have stronger
ties with the members on SNSs than they do
with members on review sites.
EVERY WORD MATTERS IN AN
INFORMATION AGE: THE IMPACT OF
INFORMATION CHARACTERISTICS IN
eWOM
Rosario et al. (2020) argue that information
is the essence of eWOM. Research on eWOM
information characteristics emphasises the
following areas: valence (positive vs. nega-
tive), volume, content/information quality,
and credibility. In this section, research on
the characteristics of eWOM information is
reviewed based on identifiable sub-themes.
eWOM Valence
The valence of information is one of the most
widely researched areas of eWOM (Kim
et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2019). This is unsur-
prising, because, on the one hand, the valence
of eWOM information conveys the first
impression for consumers who seek eWOM
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 146 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
information to support their decision-
making, and on the other hand, businesses
are also eager to understand the benefits and
damage that positive and negative eWOM,
respectively, can bring to their products and
brands. The general findings on the valence
of eWOM information are relatively consist-
ent, in that positive (or negative) eWOM
information leads to consumers’ positive (or
negative) attitude towards a product purchase
or evaluation of the product/brand (Hartman
et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2009). In addition,
there is a view that when extreme feedback is
given, negative eWOM information has a
stronger impact on eWOM-seekers’ evalua-
tion of products/brands than positive infor-
mation (Lee et al., 2009). Similarly, Yang and
Mai (2010) also maintain that negative
eWOM information attracts more attention
from consumers than positive feedback. Xue
and Zhou (2010) show that although con-
sumers have more interest in positive eWOM,
they tend to trust negative eWOM more than
positive information. There is controversy
surrounding the valence of eWOM and its
implications for consumers’ evaluation of
eWOM information. For instance, Gershoff
et al. (2003) argue that positive extreme
agreement is more influential than negative
extreme agreement when advice valence is
positive. However, others argue that message
valence has no impact on consumers’ judge-
ment of the credibility of eWOM messages
(Aggarwal et al., 2012; Cheung et al., 2009).
To explain the inconsistency in findings
regarding eWOM valence, researchers have
examined the effect sizes of positive and
negative eWOM information on a series of
factors, including consumers’ consumption
goals, product type, and the attributes of
the eWOM information. Zhang et al. (2010)
argue that positive eWOM messages are
more persuasive than negative ones when
consumers evaluate products associated with
promotion consumption goals (involving fun-
increasing consumption, e.g., photo-editing
software); and negative information is more
persuasive than positive when consumers
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 146
evaluate products associated with prevention
consumption goals (relating to safety and
prevention, e.g., antivirus software). Liao
et al. (2015) point out that such negativity
bias (the stronger effects of negative eWOM
information) is stronger for experience goods
(e.g., most critical attributes cannot be evalu-
ated before purchase) than search goods
(e.g., most critical attributes can be evaluated
before purchase). Moreover, Lee and Koo
(2012) assert that both subjective and objec-
tive eWOM messages influence consumers’
evaluation of the information’s credibility,
whereas objective eWOM information has a
relatively strong impact on consumers’ eval-
uation of information credibility (Cheung
et al., 2009; Doh & Hwang, 2009).
Based on the review of research on eWOM
valence, it would be an overgeneralisation
to conclude any consistent findings of effect
sizes of positive and negative eWOM infor-
mation. Ultimately, when consumers who
have different purposes and existing personal
beliefs encounter a large amount of eWOM
information with distinct message attributes,
the interactive effects between the consum-
ers’ beliefs and the information attributes
rely on context to a large extent. Therefore,
to better understand the dynamics of valence,
it is useful to examine more particular con-
texts with appropriate research methods. This
explains the increasing incidence of experi-
mental methods in the majority of valence-
related eWOM research.
eWOM Volume
In addition to its valence, the volume of
eWOM information is frequently examined
by researchers (Kim et al., 2019; Nieto-García
et al., 2017). Volume is not only a reflective
indicator of a product’s sales, but is also the
embodiment of the popularity of the product/
service on most review-based websites (i.e.,
e-commerce and review sites) (Park & Lee,
2009a). The effects of eWOM volume are
more consistent than the findings regarding
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
eWOM valence and suggest the principle of
the more the better (when the overall valence
of eWOM information is positive). Cui et al.
(2012) argue that both the volume and valence
of eWOM information on online shopping
sites are important to a product’s sales,
whereas the volume of reviews more signifi-
cantly influences experience sales. Therefore,
most researchers argue that the volume of
eWOM messages can be seen as a strong pre-
dictor of product sales (Amblee & Bui, 2011;
Duan et al., 2008; Liu, 2006).
Volume of eWOM messages is usually
associated with aggregate ratings (the overall
valence of available eWOM information) in
assessing the power of the number of eWOM
messages. From an information-seeking per-
spective, the number of messages or reviews
and aggregated ratings regarding a product
embody aggregate eWOM information that is
available for consumers to generate an over-
view of what previous consumers thought
about that product. The number of eWOM
messages and overall ratings are very appar-
ent attributes of eWOM information in assist-
ing consumers’ decision-making, which in
turn leads to incremental sales of the product.
For example, when a rating of a product is
given, a larger number of eWOM messages
are expected to have more indicative power
for consumers’ decision-making and purchase
intentions. Some scholars also argue that the
number of eWOM messages forms the mech-
anism of ‘richer get richer’ in eWOM in terms
of both sales (enhanced purchase intention of
eWOM-seekers) and the incremental number
of reviews (e.g., turning eWOM-seekers into
eWOM-givers in the post-consumption stage)
(Hu & Li, 2011; Moe & Schweidel, 2012).
In other words, the product with the greatest
volume of positive eWOM messages will not
only have its sales increased, but will also
attract even more reviews (Hu & Li, 2011;
Moe & Schweidel, 2008).
In contrast, Khare et al. (2011) found that
consumers also have a high desire to dis-
tinguish themselves from the majority (i.e.,
those products with a large number of eWOM
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 147
147
messages) through their consumption and
eWOM-giving. Consequently, the impact of
the volume of eWOM information as a cue
for assisting consumers’ decision-making is
usually positive but also relies on individu-
als’ trait-based desire to be consistent with or
different from the majority.
eWOM Content/Information
Quality
In most cases, eWOM is text-based. Therefore,
many studies place emphasis on understand-
ing what content makes a ‘good’ eWOM
message or review (Rizal et al., 2018; Zinko
et al., 2020). Similar to the volume of
eWOM studies, research on eWOM content
is usually conducted on review-based sites
(e.g., e-commerce and review sites). However,
the volume of eWOM reflects the aggregate
level, whereas the content of eWOM is par-
ticularly focused on the individual level
(e.g., individual reviews).
It is argued that consumers evaluate
eWOM messages through five aspects (Lo,
2014) of the content: quality, authority,
authenticity, interestingness and message
appeal. This implies that consumers make
a judgement of an eWOM message based
on three-sided appeals: informative, cogni-
tive and emotional (Liu et al., 2021a; Lo,
2014). Cheung et al. (2009) also maintain
that argument strength, message framing
and information sidedness are essential cri-
teria for consumers’ perception of the cred-
ibility of a message and their intention to
adopt that message. A similar study by Teng
et al. (2014) confirms that argument quality,
source attractiveness and message style have
a strong impact on consumers’ perceived per-
suasiveness, acceptance and intention to use
the eWOM information. Similarly, Mudambi
and Schuff (2010) further suggest that longer
eWOM messages (e.g., online reviews) are
perceived to be more helpful for consumers,
and that this effect of length is stronger for
search goods than for experience goods.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 148 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
In contrast, although work by Gottschalk and
Mafael (2017) identified that argument quality,
the structure of an eWOM message and writing
style jointly support consumers’ judgement-
making regarding an eWOM message, they
suggest that shorter eWOM messages are pre-
ferred by consumers since some claim they
are annoyed by long reviews. Moreover, some
scholars also argue that the affection embodied
in an eWOM message also influences con-
sumers’ evaluation of the information. Among
these, Ludwig et al. (2013) assert that more
positive affective content in customer reviews
leads to lower conversion rates (turning lookers
into buyers), whereas this effect is not signifi-
cant for negative affective content. On a simi-
lar note, Kim and Gupta (2012) also found that
the emotional expression in eWOM messages
influences consumers’ judgement of those mes-
sages. Hence, when there is a single eWOM
message (e.g., a review), a positive emotional
expression does not influence consumers’ eval-
uation of a product since they attribute the posi-
tive emotion to the product. Negative emotion
expression in an eWOM message enables con-
sumers to evaluate the product less negatively
as they attribute the negative emotion to the
eWOM-givers’ irrational disposition. However,
when there are multiple convergent eWOM
messages with both positive and negative affec-
tive expressions, both positive and negative
emotions affect consumers’ judgement of the
product described. Therefore, affective eWOM
content can influence consumers’ perception
of eWOM messages and their evaluation of the
product/service described by those messages.
While it is acknowledged that most con-
tent-based research focuses on text-based
eWOM messages, some studies have con-
sidered the influence of visual content in
eWOM. For example, Lin et al. (2012) point
out that eWOM information that includes
visual information and text leads to a signifi-
cantly higher evaluation of message quality,
credibility, product interest and consumers’
purchase intention in both search and experi-
ence goods. Similar effects suggesting that a
textual-visual information format motivates
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 148
consumers’ purchase intention more strongly
than a text-only format in the tourism indus-
try have been reported by Lee and Tussyadiah
(2010). These findings suggest that there is
merit in encouraging consumers’ eWOM-
sharing by using a textual-visual format.
eWOM Credibility
eWOM credibility is a widely researched
area and academics and marketing practition-
ers are interested in understanding what
makes eWOM information reliable to con-
sumers (Hong & Pittman, 2020; Hussain
et al., 2017). Prior to the conceptualisation of
eWOM, early research on user-generated
sources suggested that, similar to WOM,
eWOM has higher credibility for consumers
than marketer-created sources of information
on the Web (Bickart & Schindler, 2001).
Consumers’ judgement of eWOM credibility
can be divided into two categories: informa-
tional and interpersonal factors. In terms of
informational factors, eWOM credibility is
judged based on the other factors mentioned
in this section: valence, volume and content
of eWOM information. In this regard, Doh
and Hwang (2009) argue that the presence of
negative eWOM information leads to higher
perceived credibility of eWOM messages
because the presence of negative eWOM
information reduces the possibility of mar-
keters being involved in the eWOM commu-
nication. This also reflects a negativity bias
in consumers’ information consumption
(Kanouse, 1984). Numerous studies have
claimed a positive relationship between the
volume of eWOM messages and the credibil-
ity consumers perceive (Sher & Lee, 2009):
forging a large number of eWOM messages
is relatively costly and easily sensed by con-
sumers. Commenting to the influence of
eWOM content on perceived credibility,
Cheung et al. (2009) argue that the quality of
the argument positively influences consum-
ers’ perceived credibility of eWOM informa-
tion. Cheung et al. (2009) also claim that the
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
source credibility of eWOM messages is also
positively associated with consumers’ per-
ceived overall credibility of eWOM informa-
tion. This raises another aspect of evaluating
eWOM credibility – interpersonal factors.
The perception of eWOM-givers and the
social relationships that consumers have with
those eWOM-givers influences consumers’
judgement of eWOM information credibil-
ity. Hung and Li (2007) assert that the social
capital resources that consumers have avail-
able on eWOM media have a positive effect
on the perceived credibility. More precisely,
Wang et al. (2008) suggest that homophily has
a positive impact on individuals’ evaluation of
perceived credibility when consuming health
information. A study by Moran and Muzzellec
(2017) found that the tie strength among the
members of social networking sites positively
influences consumers’ perceived credibility of
eWOM gathered from those sites. As a result,
interpersonal factors are subject to the eWOM
sites and the social capital resources that are
available on those sites. On review-based sites
(e.g., review and e-commerce sites), consum-
ers rarely have any interpersonal relations with
other members. Therefore, most research on
social factors and eWOM credibility employ
social networking sites and discussion forums
as the research context.
TOWARDS eWOM 3.0: A
MULTIDISCIPLINARY VIEW OF
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Having presented constructs in eWOM
research, we now highlight how eWOM
practices can inform future research.
More than ‘Positive and Negative
Statements’: New-technology-
enabled eWOM
According to Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004),
eWOM refers to ‘any positive or negative
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 149
149
statement made by potential, actual, or former
customers about a product or company, which
is made available to a multitude of people and
institutions via the Internet’. It is still a widely
acknowledged definition of eWOM. However,
given the ever-developing technologies,
eWOM has been ever-evolving in its forms
(e.g., text, image, video) and can be used
across different marketing dynamics, for
example, as a part of influencer marketing
(Evans et al., 2017), seeded marketing (Chae
et al., 2017) and viral marketing (Borges-Tiago
et al., 2019). More importantly, the continued
technological development and changes in
consumer trends catalyse the emergence of
new social media platforms, such as video-
based social networking sites (e.g., Tik Tok
and YouTube), photo-based social networking
sites (e.g., Instagram and Pinterest) and multi-
media mobile applications (e.g., Snapchat),
and alternative approaches of content sharing,
like temporary sharing (e.g., Instagram Story),
live streaming (e.g., Facebook Live) and photo
filter (Snapchat’s sponsored filter) (Roy et al.,
2019). Such new practices of eWOM commu-
nication revolutionise how product/service/
brand-related information is shared, received
and forwarded. It is worthwhile for researchers
and practitioners to reflect and evaluate the
effectiveness new forms of eWOM in different
marketing settings (e.g., influencer marketing,
viral marketing etc.).
More than Consumer-to-consumer
Communication: Expansion of the
Communication Scope
Adhering to the nature of WOM, the tradi-
tional approach views eWOM as a consumer-
to-consumer (C2C) communication due to its
interpersonal and non-commercial nature
(Libai et al., 2010). As the impact of eWOM
on brand performance has been increasingly
evident, brands are making increasing efforts
in engaging with the consumer by taking ever
more proactive and reactive actions in eWOM
communication (Wakefield & Wakefield,
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 150 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
2018). This leads to the transformation of
eWOM from a C2C-only to a business-to-
consumer (B2C)-friendly communication in
the consumer market (Izogo et al., 2021; Liu
et al., 2019). On the one hand, brands tend to
nurture positive eWOM through the proactive
eWOM strategies and, on the other hand,
brands deal with both positive and negative
eWOM in the hope of maximising overall cus-
tomer satisfaction. It is important to recognise
the significant involvement of brands in
eWOM communication and highlight the
importance of strategic management of eWOM
(Liu et al., 2019; Osburg et al., 2020; Tran
et al., 2021). Meanwhile, in industrial markets,
business-to-business (B2B) brands are also
increasingly embracing social media channels
(Cartwright et al., 2021; Iankova et al., 2019).
eWOM as a derivative of social media has also
been recognised in industrial marketing, and
plays a vital role in the selling–purchasing
mechanism in the B2B marketplace (Steward
et al., 2018). Therefore, the communication
scope of eWOM expands from C2C to the
B2C communication but also goes beyond the
consumer market and influences the marketing
effectiveness in the industrial market.
More than eWOM-giving,
-seeking and -transmitting:
Information-shaped Consumer
Behaviours
Since 1960s, WOM research recognises the
effects of WOM communication throughout
the consumers’ decision-making process (e.g.,
eWOM-seeking pre-purchase and eWOM-
giving post-purchase). With the incremental
advances in mobile technology, consumers are
able to access an abundance of consumption-
related information at any moment. Such
information significantly shapes the consumer
behaviour, with every touchpoint in the con-
sumer journey providing an opportunity for
eWOM (Liu et al., 2021c). Therefore, con-
sumers’ eWOM engaging behaviours become
increasingly diverse (Liu et al., 2020; Liu
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 150
et al., 2021b). The antecedents and effects of
such new types of eWOM engagement behav-
iours warrant closer attention from the
researchers and marketers.
More than a Happy Wonderland:
Ethical Concerns in eWOM
Communication
As competition becomes more intense in the
marketplace, it has been recognised that
some brands commit ‘eWOM fraud’. Some
businesses generate fake reviews and eWOM
messages for themselves or against their
competitors, which poses a serious ethical
issue in the eWOM communication (Luca &
Zervas, 2016). Justifiably, ethical (and non-
ethical) practices are attracting increasing
attention in both business and Internet use.
Important ethical issues need to be addressed,
such as how ethicality-related eWOM influ-
ences consumers’ perceptions and brands’
performance, how eWOM enhances the
effectiveness of brands’ corporate social
responsibility (CSR) activities and ethical
practices, how media owners and policy-
makers address and prevent vicious competi-
tion through eWOM, etc. (Chu et al., 2020).
From the perspective of cyber- and techno-
ethics, eWOM communication also high-
lights various issues. For example, eWOM
messages as digital footprints left by con-
sumers raise privacy concerns (Nam et al.,
2020). Aggressive eWOM conversations can
trigger online bullying (Israeli et al., 2019).
Such ethical issues deserve close attention
from researchers, marketers, media providers
and policy-makers in order to fulfil the sus-
tainable development of eWOM.
REFERENCES
Abedi, E., Ghorbanzadeh, D., & Rahehagh, A.
(2019). Influence of eWOM information on
consumers’ behavioral intentions in mobile
social networks. Journal of Advances in
Management Research, 17(1), 84–109.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
Aggarwal, R., Gopal, R., Gupta, A., & Singh, H.
(2012). Putting money where the mouths
are: The relation between venture financing
and electronic word-of-mouth. Information
Systems Research, 23(3-part-2), 976–992.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behav-
ior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Amblee, N., & Bui, T. (2011). Harnessing the
influence of social proof in online shopping:
The effect of electronic word of mouth on
sales of digital microproducts. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 16(2),
91–114.
Ashforth, B. E. & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity
theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of
thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bell, H., & Tang, N. K. (1998). The effectiveness of
commercial Internet Web sites: A user’s per-
spective. Internet Research, 8(3), 219–228.
Bettman, J. R. (1970). Information processing
models of consumer behavior. Journal of
Marketing Research, 7(3), 370–376.
Bickart, B., & Schindler, R. M. (2001). Internet
forums as influential sources of consumer
information. Journal of Interactive Market‐
ing, 15(3), 31–40.
Bigné, E., Hernández, B., Ruiz, C., & Andreu, L.
(2010). How motivation, opportunity and
ability can drive online airline ticket pur-
chases. Journal of Air Transport Manage‐
ment, 16(6), 346–349.
Blodgett, J. G., Granbois, D. H., & Walters, R.
G. (1993). The effects of perceived justice on
complainants’ negative word-of-mouth
behavior and repatronage intentions. Journal
of Retailing, 69(4), 399–428.
Borges-Tiago, M. T., Tiago, F., & Cosme, C.
(2019). Exploring users’ motivations to par-
ticipate in viral communication on social
media. Journal of Business Research, 101,
574–582.
Breitenbach, C. S., & Van Doren, D. C. (1998).
Value-added marketing in the digital domain:
Enhancing the utility of the Internet. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 15(6), 558–575.
Brooks Jr, R. C. (1957). ‘Word-of-mouth’ adver-
tising in selling new products. Journal of
Marketing, 22(2), 154–161.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 151
151
Buultjens, J., Neale, K., & Lamont, M. (2013).
Hosts, guests and a drug culture in a destina-
tion: A case study of Nimbin, Australia. Jour‐
nal of Destination Marketing & Management,
2(3), 185–195.
Camarero, C., & San José, R. (2011). Social and
attitudinal determinants of viral marketing
dynamics. Computers in Human Behavior,
27(6), 2292–2300.
Canhoto, A. I., & Clark, M. (2013). Customer
service 140 characters at a time: The users’
perspective. Journal of Marketing Manage‐
ment, 29(5–6), 522–544.
Cartwright, S., Liu, H., & Raddats, C. (2021).
Strategic use of social media within business-
to-business (B2B) marketing: A systematic
literature review. Industrial Marketing Man‐
agement, 97, 35–58.
Chae, I., Stephen, A. T., Bart, Y., & Yao, D.
(2017). Spillover effects in seeded word-of-
mouth marketing campaigns. Marketing Sci‐
ence, 36(1), 89–104.
Cheong, H. J., & Morrison, M. A. (2008). Con-
sumers’ reliance on product information and
recommendations found in UGC. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 8(2), 38–49.
Cheung, M. Y., Luo, C., Sia, C. L., & Chen, H.
(2009). Credibility of electronic word-of-
mouth: Informational and normative determi-
nants of on-line consumer recommendations.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce,
13(4), 9–38.
Chevalier, J. A., & Mayzlin, D. (2006). The
effect of word of mouth on sales: Online
book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research,
43(3), 345–354.
Choi, J. H., & Scott, J. E. (2013). Electronic
word of mouth and knowledge sharing on
social network sites: A social capital perspec-
tive. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Elec‐
tronic Commerce Research, 8(1), 69–82.
Chu, S. C., Chen, H. T., & Gan, C. (2020). Con-
sumers’ engagement with corporate social
responsibility (CSR) communication in social
media: Evidence from China and the United
States. Journal of Business Research, 110,
260–271.
Chu, S. C., & Kim, Y. (2011). Determinants of
consumer engagement in electronic word-
of-mouth (eWOM) in social networking sites.
International Journal of Advertising, 30(1),
47–75.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 152 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
Chu, S. C., Lien, C. H., & Cao, Y. (2019). Elec-
tronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) on WeChat:
Examining the influence of sense of belong-
ing, need for self-enhancement, and con-
sumer engagement on Chinese travellers’
eWOM. International Journal of Advertising,
38(1), 26–49.
Corey, L. G. (1971). People who claim to be
opinion leaders: Identifying their characteris-
tics by self-report. Journal of Marketing,
35(4), 48–53.
Cui, G., Lui, H. K., & Guo, X. (2012). The effect
of online consumer reviews on new product
sales. International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, 17(1), 39–58.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance
model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results.
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology.
Dichter, E. (1966). How word-of-mouth adver-
tising works. Harvard Business Review, 44,
147–166.
Doh, S. J., & Hwang, J. S. (2009). How consum-
ers evaluate eWOM (electronic word-of-
mouth) messages. CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 12(2), 193–197.
Duan, W., Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B. (2008). Do
online reviews matter? An empirical investi-
gation of panel data. Decision Support Sys‐
tems, 45(4), 1007–1016.
Duarte Alonso, A., Bressan, A., O’Shea, M., &
Krajsic, V. (2013). Website and social media
usage: Implications for the further develop-
ment of wine tourism, hospitality, and the
wine sector. Tourism Planning & Develop‐
ment, 10(3), 229–248.
Eisenbeiss, M., Blechschmidt, B., Backhaus, K.,
& Freund, P. A. (2012). ‘The (real) world is
not enough’: Motivational drivers and user
behavior in virtual worlds. Journal of Interac‐
tive Marketing, 26(1), 4–20.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory.
Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
Engel, J. F., Kegerreis, R. J., & Blackwell, R. D.
(1969). Word-of-mouth communication by
the innovator. Journal of Marketing, 33(3),
15–19.
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017).
Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising:
The effects of disclosure language on adver-
tising recognition, attitudes, and behavioral
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 152
intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising,
17(2), 138–149.
Fang, Y. H. (2014). Beyond the credibility of
electronic word of mouth: Exploring eWOM
adoption on social networking sites from
affective and curiosity perspectives. Interna‐
tional Journal of Electronic Commerce, 18(3),
67–102.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1977). Belief, attitude,
intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Journal of Business
Venturing, 5, 177–189.
Fodness, D., & Murray, B. (1999). A model of
tourist information search behavior. Journal
of Travel Research, 37(3), 220–230.
Gershoff, A. D., Mukherjee, A., & Mukhopad-
hyay, A. (2003). Consumer acceptance of
online agent advice: Extremity and positivity
effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13(1–2), 161–170.
Goldsmith, R. E., & Horowitz, D. (2006). Meas-
uring motivations for online opinion seeking.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 6(2), 2–14.
Gottschalk, S. A., & Mafael, A. (2017). Cutting
through the online review jungle: Investigat-
ing selective eWOM processing. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 37, 89–104.
Gretzel, U., & Yoo, K. H. (2008). Use and
impact of online travel reviews. Information
and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2008, 35–46.
Gvili, Y., & Levy, S. (2018). Consumer engage-
ment with eWOM on social media: The role
of social capital. Online Information Review,
42(4), 482–505.
Han, S. L., Song, H., & Han, J. J. (2013). Effects
of technology readiness on prosumer atti-
tude and eWOM. Journal of Global Scholars
of Marketing Science, 23(2), 159–174.
Hartline, M. D., & Jones, K. C. (1996). Employee
performance cues in a hotel service environ-
ment: Influence on perceived service quality,
value, and word-of-mouth intentions. Jour‐
nal of Business Research, 35(3), 207–215.
Hartman, K. B., Hunt, J. B., & Childers, C. Y.
(2013). Effects of eWOM valence: examining
consumer choice using evaluations of teach-
ing. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Busi‐
ness, 6, 1.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., &
Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word-of-
mouth via consumer-opinion platforms:
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
What motivates consumers to articulate
themselves on the internet? Journal of Inter‐
active Marketing, 18(1), 38–52.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Walsh, G., & Walsh, G.
(2003). Electronic word-of-mouth: Motives
for and consequences of reading customer
articulations on the Internet. International
Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(2),
51–74.
Hicks, A., Comp, S., Horovitz, J., Hovarter, M.,
Miki, M., & Bevan, J. L. (2012). Why people
use Yelp.com: An exploration of uses and
gratifications. Computers in Human Behav‐
ior, 28(6), 2274–2279.
Hong, S., & Pittman, M. (2020). eWOM anat-
omy of online product reviews: Interaction
effects of review number, valence, and star
ratings on perceived credibility. International
Journal of Advertising, 39(7), 892–920.
Hu, Y., & Li, X. (2011). Context-dependent
product evaluations: an empirical analysis of
internet book reviews. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 25(3), 123–133.
Huang, L. S., Chou, Y. J., & Lin, C. H. (2008).
The influence of reading motives on the
responses after reading blogs. CyberPsychol‐
ogy & Behavior, 11(3), 351–355.
Hung, K. H., & Li, S. Y. (2007). The influence of
eWOM on virtual consumer communities:
Social capital, consumer learning, and behav-
ioral outcomes. Journal of Advertising
Research, 47(4), 485–495.
Hussain, S., Ahmed, W., Jafar, R. M. S.,
Rabnawaz, A., & Jianzhou, Y. (2017). eWOM
source credibility, perceived risk and food
product customer’s information adoption.
Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 96–102.
Iankova, S., Davies, I., Archer-Brown, C.,
Marder, B., & Yau, A. (2019). A comparison
of social media marketing between B2B,
B2C and mixed business models. Industrial
Marketing Management, 81, 169–179.
Ismagilova, E., Rana, N. P., Slade, E. L., &
Dwivedi, Y. K. (2020). A meta-analysis of the
factors affecting eWOM providing behav-
iour. European Journal of Marketing, 55(4),
1067–1102. Online first, November 24.
doi/10.1108/EJM-07-2018-0472
Israeli, A. A., Lee, S. A., & Karpinski, A. C.
(2019). The relationship between Internet
addiction and negative eWOM. The Service
Industries Journal, 39(13–14), 943–965.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 153
153
Izogo, E. E., Mpinganjira, M., Karjaluoto, H., &
Liu, H. (2021). Examining the Impact of
eWOM-Triggered Customer-to-Customer
Interactions on Travelers’ Repurchase and
Social Media Engagement. Journal of Travel
Research, 00472875211050420.
Jacobsen, J. K. S., & Munar, A. M. (2012). Tour-
ist information search and destination choice
in a digital age. Tourism Management Per‐
spectives, 1, 39–47.
Jalilvand, M. R., Esfahani, S. S., & Samiei, N.
(2011). Electronic word-of-mouth: Chal-
lenges and opportunities. Procedia Com‐
puter Science, 3, 42–46.
Jeong, E., & Jang, S. S. (2011). Restaurant
experiences triggering positive electronic
word-of-mouth (eWOM) motivations. Inter‐
national Journal of Hospitality Management,
30(2), 356–366.
Johnson, E. J., & Russo, J. E. (1978). The organ-
ization of product information in memory
identified by recall times. ACR North Ameri‐
can Advances.
José-Cabezudo, R. S., & Camarero-Izquierdo,
C. (2012). Determinants of opening-for-
warding e-mail messages. Journal of Adver‐
tising, 41(2), 97–112.
Kanje, P., Charles, G., Tumsifu, E., Mossberg, L.,
& Andersson, T. (2020). Customer engage-
ment and eWOM in tourism. Journal of Hos‐
pitality and Tourism Insights, 3(3) 273–289.
Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity
biases in evaluation and choice behavior:
Theory and research. ACR North American
Advances.
Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of commu-
nication: An up-to-date report on an hypoth-
esis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61–78.
Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1970). Personal
influence: The part played by people in the
flow of mass communications. New Brun-
swick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social
psychology. In Nebraska symposium on
motivation. Lincoln, NB: University of
Nebraska Press.
Khammash, M., & Griffiths, G. H. (2011). ‘Arri-
vederci CIAO. com, Buongiorno Bing. com’:
Electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM), ante-
cedences and consequences. International
Journal of Information Management, 31(1),
82–87.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 154 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
Khare, A., Labrecque, L. I., & Asare, A. K.
(2011). The assimilative and contrastive
effects of word-of-mouth volume: An experi-
mental examination of online consumer rat-
ings. Journal of Retailing, 87(1), 111–126.
Kim, E. E. K., Mattila, A. S., & Baloglu, S. (2011).
Effects of gender and expertise on consumers’
motivation to read online hotel reviews. Cor‐
nell Hospitality Quarterly, 52(4), 399–406.
Kim, J., & Gupta, P. (2012). Emotional expres-
sions in online user reviews: How they influ-
ence consumers’ product evaluations. Journal
of Business Research, 65(7), 985–992.
Kim, K., Yoon, S., & Choi, Y. K. (2019). The
effects of eWOM volume and valence on
product sales: An empirical examination of
the movie industry. International Journal of
Advertising, 38(3), 471–488.
Kim, S., Kandampully, J., & Bilgihan, A. (2018).
The influence of eWOM communications:
An application of online social network
framework. Computers in Human Behavior,
80, 243–254.
Kim, S., & Park, H. (2013). Effects of various
characteristics of social commerce (s-com-
merce) on consumers’ trust and trust perfor-
mance. International Journal of Information
Management, 33(2), 318–332.
Kim, Y., Park, Y., Lee, Y., & Park, K. (2018). Do
we always adopt Facebook friends’ eWOM
postings? The role of social identity and
threat. International Journal of Advertising,
37(1), 86–104.
King, C. W., & Summers, J. O. (1970). Overlap
of opinion leadership across consumer prod-
uct categories. Journal of Marketing Research,
7(1), 43–50.
Lee, G., & Tussyadiah, I. P. (2010). Textual and
visual information in eWOM: A gap between
preferences in information search and diffu-
sion. Information Technology & Tourism,
12(4), 351–361.
Lee, K. T., & Koo, D. M. (2012). Effects of
attribute and valence of e-WOM on message
adoption: Moderating roles of subjective
knowledge and regulatory focus. Computers
in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1974–1984.
Lee, M., Rodgers, S., & Kim, M. (2009). Effects
of valence and extremity of eWOM on atti-
tude toward the brand and website. Journal
of Current Issues & Research in Advertising,
31(2), 1–11.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 154
Lee, M. C. (2010). Explaining and predicting
users’ continuance intention toward e-learn-
ing: An extension of the expectation–confir-
mation model. Computers and Education,
54(2), 506–516.
Lee, S. H., Noh, S. E., & Kim, H. W. (2013). A
mixed methods approach to electronic word-
of-mouth in the open-market context. Inter‐
national Journal of Information Management,
33(4), 687–696.
Leong, L. Y., Hew, T. S., Ooi, K. B., & Lin, B.
(2019). Do electronic word-of-mouth and
elaboration likelihood model influence hotel
booking? Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 59(2), 146–160.
Lewis, H. G., & Lewis, R. D. (1997). Give your
customers what they want. Selling on the
Net, Executive Book Summaries, 19(3).
Liang, Y., DeAngelis, B. N., Clare, D. D., Dorros,
S. M., & Levine, T. R. (2014). Message char-
acteristics in online product reviews and
consumer ratings of helpfulness. Southern
Communication Journal, 79(5), 468–483.
Liao, S., Lee, C. T. Y., Lin, T. H., & Lin, M. C.
(2015). eWOM richness of leisure farm tour
experience: Influences of message valence,
product type and consumer knowledge. Jour‐
nal of Marketing Management, 3(2), 55–68.
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M. S., De Ruyter, K.,
Götz, O., Risselada, H., & Stephen, A. T.
(2010). Customer-to-customer interactions:
Broadening the scope of word of mouth
research. Journal of Service Research, 13(3),
267–282.
Lin, T. M., Lu, K. Y., & Wu, J. J. (2012). The
effects of visual information in eWOM com-
munication. Journal of Research in Interac‐
tive Marketing, 6(1), 7–26.
Litvin, S. W., Goldsmith, R. E., & Pan, B. (2008).
Electronic word-of-mouth in hospitality and
tourism management. Tourism Manage‐
ment, 29(3), 458–468.
Liu, H., Jayawardhena, C., Dibb, S., &
Ranaweera, C. (2019). Examining the trade-
off between compensation and promptness
in eWOM-triggered service recovery: A
restorative justice perspective. Tourism Man‐
agement, 75, 381–392.
Liu, H., Jayawardhena, C., Osburg, V. S., &
Babu, M. M. (2020). Do online reviews still
matter post-purchase? Internet Research,
30(1), 109–139.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
Liu, H., Jayawardhena, C., Osburg, V. S., Yoga-
nathan, V., & Cartwright, S. (2021a). Social
sharing of consumption emotion in elec-
tronic word of mouth (eWOM): A cross-
media perspective. Journal of Business
Research, 132, 208–220.
Liu, H., Liu, W., Yoganathan, V., & Osburg, V. S.
(2021b). COVID-19 information overload
and generation Z’s social media discontinu-
ance intention during the pandemic lock-
down. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 166, 120600.
Liu, H., Meng-Lewis, Y., Ibrahim, F., & Zhu, X.
(2021c). Superfoods, super healthy: Myth or
reality? Examining consumers’ repurchase
and WOM intention regarding superfoods: A
theory of consumption values perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 137, 69–88.
Liu, Y. (2006). Word of mouth for movies: Its
dynamics and impact on box office revenue.
Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 74–89.
Lo, L. W. (2014). An exploratory research on
eWOM information seeking behavior and
attitudes in service consumption. Review of
Integrative Business and Economics Research,
3(1), 172–189.
Lobschat, L., Zinnbauer, M. A., Pallas, F., &
Joachimsthaler, E. (2013). Why social cur-
rency becomes a key driver of a firm’s brand
equity–insights from the automotive indus-
try. Long Range Planning, 46(1), 125–148.
Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014).
Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s spon-
sored recommendations and purchase inten-
tion: The effect of sponsorship type, product
type, and brand awareness. Computers in
Human Behavior, 34, 258–266.
Luca, M., & Zervas, G. (2016). Fake it till you
make it: Reputation, competition, and Yelp
review fraud. Management Science, 62(12),
3412–3427.
Ludwig, S., De Ruyter, K., Friedman, M.,
Brüggen, E. C., Wetzels, M., & Pfann, G.
(2013). More than words: The influence of
affective content and linguistic style matches
in online reviews on conversion rates. Jour‐
nal of Marketing, 77(1), 87–103.
Mahajan, V., & Muller, E. (1979). Innovation diffu-
sion and new product growth models in mar-
keting. Journal of Marketing, 43(4), 55–68.
Martilla, J. A. (1971). Word-of-mouth communica-
tion in the industrial adoption process. Journal
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 155
155
of Marketing Research, 173–178. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224377100800203
Martin, W. C., & Lueg, J. E. (2013). Modeling
word-of-mouth usage. Journal of Business
Research, 66(7), 801–808.
Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. H. S. (2013). Beyond liking
or following: Understanding public engage-
ment on social networking sites in China.
Public Relations Review, 39(1), 13–22.
Meuter, M. L., McCabe, D. B., & Curran, J. M.
(2013). Electronic word-of-mouth versus
interpersonal word-of-mouth: Are all forms
of word-of-mouth equally influential? Ser‐
vices Marketing Quarterly, 34(3), 240–256.
Midgley, D. F., & Dowling, G. R. (1978). Inno-
vativeness: The concept and its measure-
ment. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4),
229–242.
Moe, W. W., & Schweidel, D. A. (2012). Online
product opinions: Incidence, evaluation, and
evolution. Marketing Science, 31(3),
372–386.
Molina-Castillo, F. J., Lopez-Nicolas, C., & Soto-
Acosta, P. (2012). Interaction effects of media
and message on perceived complexity, risk
and trust of innovative products. European
Management Journal, 30(6), 577–587.
Monahan, G. E. (1984). Technical note – A pure
birth model of optimal advertising with
word-of-mouth. Marketing Science, 3(2),
169–178.
Moran, G., & Muzellec, L. (2017). eWOM cred-
ibility on social networking sites: A frame-
work. Journal of Marketing Communications,
23(2), 149–161.
Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What
makes a helpful review? A study of customer
reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly,
34(1), 185–200.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capi-
tal, intellectual capital, and the organiza-
tional advantage. Academy of Management
Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nam, K., Baker, J., Ahmad, N., & Goo, J.
(2020). Determinants of writing positive and
negative electronic word-of-mouth: Empiri-
cal evidence for two types of expectation
confirmation. Decision Support Systems,
129, 113168.
Nieto-García, M., Muñoz-Gallego, P. A., &
González-Benito, Ó. (2017). Tourists’ willing-
ness to pay for an accommodation: The
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 156 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
effect of eWOM and internal reference price.
International Journal of Hospitality Manage‐
ment, 62, 67–77.
Norman, A. T., & Russell, C. A. (2006). The
pass‐along effect: Investigating word‐of‐
mouth effects on online survey procedures.
Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communica‐
tion, 11(4), 1085–1103.
Okazaki, S. (2009). Social influence model and
electronic word of mouth: PC versus mobile
internet. International Journal of Advertising,
28(3), 439–472.
Ölander, F., & Thøgersen, J. (1995). Under-
standing of consumer behaviour as a prereq-
uisite for environmental protection, Journal
of Consumer Policy, 18(4), 345–385.
Osburg, V. S., Yoganathan, V., Bartikowski, B.,
Liu, H., & Strack, M. (2020). Effects of ethical
certification and ethical eWoM on talent
attraction. Journal of Business Ethics, 164(3),
535–548.
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009a). Antecedents of
online reviews’ usage and purchase influ-
ence: An empirical comparison of US and
Korean consumers. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23(4), 332–340.
Park, C., & Lee, T. M. (2009b). Information
direction, website reputation and eWOM
effect: A moderating role of product type.
Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 61–67.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elabo-
ration likelihood model of persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
19, 123–205.
Plume, C. J., & Slade, E. L. (2018). Sharing of
sponsored advertisements on social media: A
uses and gratifications perspective. Informa‐
tion Systems Frontiers, 20(3), 471–483.
Richins, M. L. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth
by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study.
Journal of Marketing, 47(1), 68–78.
Richins, M. L. (1984). Word of mouth commu-
nication as negative information. NA-
Advances in Consumer Research, 11.
Richins, M. L. (1987). A multivariate analysis of
responses to dissatisfaction. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 15(3), 24–31.
Rizal, H., Yussof, S., Amin, H., & Chen-Jung, K.
(2018). EWOM towards homestays lodging:
Extending the information system success
model. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Technology, 9(1), 94–108.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 156
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Com‐
munication of innovations: A cross-cultural
approach. New York: The Free Press.
Rosario, A. B., de Valck, K., & Sotgiu, F. (2020).
Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-
mouth process: What we know and need to
know about eWOM creation, exposure, and
evaluation. Journal of the Academy of Mar‐
keting Science, 48(3), 422–448.
Roy, G., Datta, B., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). Role
of electronic word-of-mouth content and
valence in influencing online purchase
behavior. Journal of Marketing Communica‐
tions, 25(6), 661–684.
Ryan, D., & Jones, C. (2009). Understanding
digital marketing: Marketing strategies for
engaging the digital generation. London:
Kogan Page.
Schiffman, L. G., & Gaccione, V. (1974). Opin-
ion leaders in institutional markets. Journal
of Marketing, 38, 49–53.
Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.). (2011). The
SAGE handbook of social network analysis.
London: SAGE.
Shardanand, U., & Maes, P. (1995, May). Social
information filtering: Algorithms for auto-
mating ‘word of mouth’. In Proceedings of
the SIGCHI conference on human factors in
computing systems (pp. 210–217). London:
ACM Press/Addison-Wesley.
Sher, P. J., & Lee, S. H. (2009). Consumer skep-
ticism and online reviews: An elaboration
likelihood model perspective. Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal,
37(1), 137–143.
Smith, A. N., Fischer, E., & Yongjian, C. (2012).
How does brand-related user-generated con-
tent differ across YouTube, Facebook, and
Twitter? Journal of Interactive Marketing,
26(2), 102–113.
Soliman, M. (2019). Extending the theory of
planned behavior to predict tourism destina-
tion revisit intention. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 22(5),
524–549.
Steward, M. D., Narus, J. A., & Roehm, M. L.
(2018). An exploratory study of business-
to-business online customer reviews: Exter-
nal online professional communities and
internal vendor scorecards. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 46(2),
173–189.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 The Impact of Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) on Consumer Behaviours
Sun, T., Youn, S., Wu, G., & Kuntaraporn, M.
(2006). Online word‐of‐mouth (or mouse):
An exploration of its antecedents and conse-
quences. Journal of Computer‐Mediated
Communication, 11(4), 1104–1127.
Swanepoel, C., Lye, A., & Rugimbana, R.
(2009). Virally inspired: A review of the
theory of viral stealth marketing. Australa‐
sian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 17(1), 9–15.
Tapiero, C. S. (1983). Stochastic diffusion
models with advertising and word-of-mouth
effects. European Journal of Operational
Research, 12(4), 348–356.
Taylor, D. G., Strutton, D., & Thompson, K.
(2012). Self-enhancement as a motivation
for sharing online advertising. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 12(2), 13–28.
Teng, S., Wei Khong, K., Wei Goh, W., & Yee
Loong Chong, A. (2014). Examining the
antecedents of persuasive eWOM messages
in social media. Online Information Review,
38(6), 746–768.
Thorson, K. S., & Rodgers, S. (2006). Relation-
ships between blogs as eWOM and interac-
tivity, perceived interactivity, and parasocial
interaction. Journal of Interactive Advertis‐
ing, 6(2), 5–44.
Tran, H. A., Strizhakova, Y., Liu, H., & Golgeci,
I. (2021). “If only…”: customer counterfac-
tual thinking in failed recovery. European
Journal of Marketing, 55(12), 3221–3249.
Traylor, M. B., & Mathias, A. M. (1983). The
impact of TV advertising versus word of
mouth on the image of lawyers: A projective
experiment. Journal of Advertising, 12(4),
42–49.
Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations
and antecedents of consumer engagement
with brand pages on social networking sites.
Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2),
76–87.
Verhagen, T., Nauta, A., & Feldberg, F. (2013).
Negative online word-of-mouth: Behavioral
indicator or emotional release? Computers in
Human Behavior, 29(4), 1430–1440.
Wakefield, L. T., & Wakefield, R. L. (2018).
Anxiety and ephemeral social media use in
negative eWOM creation. Journal of Interac‐
tive Marketing, 41, 44–59.
Wang, N., Shen, X. L., & Sun, Y. (2013). Transi-
tion of electronic word-of-mouth services
from web to mobile context: A trust transfer
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd 157
157
perspective. Decision Support Systems,
54(3), 1394–1403.
Wang, Z., Walther, J. B., Pingree, S., & Hawk-
ins, R. P. (2008). Health information, credibil-
ity, homophily, and influence via the Internet:
Web sites versus discussion groups. Health
Communication, 23(4), 358–368.
Wasserman, S. (1994). Social network analysis:
Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
wearsocial. (2021, January). Digital in 2020:
Global overview. Retrieved from https://
wearesocial.com/digital-2020
Webster Jr, F. E. (1970). Informal communica-
tion in industrial markets. Journal of Market‐
ing Research, 7(May), 186–189.
Wei, P. S., & Lu, H. P. (2013). An examination of
the celebrity endorsements and online cus-
tomer reviews influence female consumers’
shopping behavior. Computers in Human
Behavior, 29(1), 193–201.
Weiner, B. (Ed.). (1974). Achievement motiva‐
tion and attribution theory. New York: Gen-
eral Learning Press.
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consump-
tion-based affective responses and postpur-
chase processes. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24, 258–270.
Wu, J. J., & Tsang, A. S. (2008). Factors affect-
ing members’ trust belief and behaviour
intention in virtual communities. Behaviour
& Information Technology, 27(2), 115–125.
Wu, T. Y., & Lin, C. A. (2017). Predicting the
effects of eWOM and online brand messag-
ing: Source trust, bandwagon effect and
innovation adoption factors. Telematics and
Informatics, 34(2), 470–480.
Xue, F., & Zhou, P. (2010). The effects of prod-
uct involvement and prior experience on
Chinese consumers’ responses to online
word of mouth. Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 45–58.
Yang, F. X. (2017). Effects of restaurant satisfac-
tion and knowledge sharing motivation on
eWOM intentions: The moderating role of
technology acceptance factors. Journal of Hos‐
pitality & Tourism Research, 41(1), 93–127.
Yang, H., Zhou, L., & Liu, H. (2012). Predicting
young American and Chinese consumers’
mobile viral attitudes, intents, and behavior.
Journal of International Consumer Market‐
ing, 24(1–2), 24–42.
07/04/22 3:35 PM
 158 The SAGE Handbook of Digital Marketing
Yang, J., & Mai, E. S. (2010). Experiential goods
with network externalities effects: An empir-
ical study of online rating system. Journal of
Business Research, 63(9), 1050–1057.
Yeh, Y. H., & Choi, S. M. (2011). MINI-lovers,
maxi-mouths: An investigation of anteced-
ents to eWOM intention among brand com-
munity members. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 17(3), 145–162.
Yen, C. L. A., & Tang, C. H. H. (2015). Hotel
attribute performance, eWOM motivations &
media choice. International Journal of Hospi‐
tality Management, 46, 79–88.
Yoo, C. W., Sanders, G. L., & Moon, J. (2013).
Exploring the effect of e-WOM participation
on e-Loyalty in e-commerce. Decision Sup‐
port Systems, 55(3), 669–678.
Yoo, K. H., & Gretzel, U. (2008). What moti-
vates consumers to write online travel
reviews? Information Technology & Tourism,
10(4), 283–295.
Zakon, R. H. (1997). Hobbes’ internet timeline.
Network Working Group.
BK-SAGE-HANLON_TUTEN-210333-Chp09.indd
View publication stats 158
Zhang, J. Q., Craciun, G., & Shin, D. (2010).
When does electronic word-of-mouth matter?
A study of consumer product reviews. Journal
of Business Research, 63(12), 1336–1341.
Zhang, M., Jansen, B. J., & Chowdhury, A. (2011).
Business engagement on Twitter: A path analy-
sis. Electronic Markets, 21(3), 161–175.
Zhang, Y., Fang, Y., Wei, K. K., & He, W.
(2013). Cognitive elaboration during wiki
use in project teams: An empirical study.
Decision Support Systems, 55(3), 792–801.
Zhou, S., Barnes, L., McCormick, H., & Cano,
M. B. (2020). Social media influencers’ narra-
tive strategies to create eWOM: A theoretical
contribution. International Journal of Infor‐
mation Management, 102293.
Zinko, R., Stolk, P., Furner, Z., & Almond, B.
(2020). A picture is worth a thousand words:
How images influence information quality
and information load in online reviews. Elec‐
tronic Markets, 30, 775–789. Online first,
April 13, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/
S12525-019-00345-Y
07/04/22 3:35 PM